🇺🇸
Constitutional Law • Voting
CONLAW#077
Legal Definition
Voting is a fundamental right under the Equal Protection Clause and the 15th Amendment. Laws that deny some citizens the right to vote must meet strict scrutiny, but regulations of the electoral process to prevent fraud need only be desirable on balance. Poll taxes are unconstitutional, and voting requirements involving property ownership are almost always unconstitutional.
Plain English Explanation
Voting is such an important thing that, historically, bad people have made up rules to try to prevent oppressed groups of people from participating in the process. Rules like charging money to vote (a "poll tax") or having to prove you can read are no longer allowed. Similarly, having to own property is generally unconstitutional (but can sometimes be allowed for certain special purpose elections that deal with resource management where it makes sense to limit voting to only those affected by those regional resources). Overall, if you see a law that attempts to deny a certain group of citizens the ability to vote, it should be assessed via strict scrutiny.
In other cases, states will sometimes create regulations that attempt to prevent cheating or fraud. When courts evaluate these types of issues, they will apply a "balancing test." This test weighs the extent of the burden these regulations place on individuals' rights to vote against the state's interest in preventing fraud. If, on balance (when they are done balancing the pros and cons), the regulation is deemed reasonable and does not unduly infringe on the First Amendment rights of speech, assembly, and association, it will generally be upheld. The Supreme Court has indicated that if a restriction on these First Amendment activities is reasonable and nondiscriminatory, it will likely be upheld based on the state's important regulatory interests, without needing to be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interest.
In other cases, states will sometimes create regulations that attempt to prevent cheating or fraud. When courts evaluate these types of issues, they will apply a "balancing test." This test weighs the extent of the burden these regulations place on individuals' rights to vote against the state's interest in preventing fraud. If, on balance (when they are done balancing the pros and cons), the regulation is deemed reasonable and does not unduly infringe on the First Amendment rights of speech, assembly, and association, it will generally be upheld. The Supreme Court has indicated that if a restriction on these First Amendment activities is reasonable and nondiscriminatory, it will likely be upheld based on the state's important regulatory interests, without needing to be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interest.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: New Hypoland passes a law saying only people who have paid a $50 voting fee can vote. Bob pays the fee and votes, but Sam, who can't afford the fee, is left out. Result: This law is unconstitutional because it's essentially a poll tax, which directly violates the Constitution by denying Sam the right to vote based on his ability to pay.
Hypo 2: In an effort to clean up the voter rolls, Hypofornia cancels the registrations of people who haven't voted in the past ten years and fails to respond to mail inquiries. Bob, who has been abroad for a decade, returns and finds he can't vote. Result: This law might be seen as a reasonable regulation to prevent voter fraud and ensure an up-to-date voter list, as long as there's a clear and easy process for people like Bob to re-register.
Hypo 2: In an effort to clean up the voter rolls, Hypofornia cancels the registrations of people who haven't voted in the past ten years and fails to respond to mail inquiries. Bob, who has been abroad for a decade, returns and finds he can't vote. Result: This law might be seen as a reasonable regulation to prevent voter fraud and ensure an up-to-date voter list, as long as there's a clear and easy process for people like Bob to re-register.
